I don't routinely put a Watch on other people's talk pages. Nothing personal! I endorse keeping a conversation together on a single talk page, but a few days after the conversation ends, I will Unwatch you--the alternative being endless false alarms.

Anything typed here I may post-edit clerically. Typically, I combine parts of dialogues that took place on the other guy's talk page. Some conversations that pertain to the text of an article are moved to that article's talk page.

Could you please take a look at this page for me? It was created by Lucifuge Rofacale. As a liberal, I'm not likely to find this page funny, rather I find it to be a political rant against liberals. Perhaps you could give the page another perspective since you have conservative leanings. I left some feedback on the talk page of the article, but maybe you could give the author some better ideas on how to make it funnier. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 17:05, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Your edits will no longer show up on Special:RecentChanges with an exclamation point begging us to check them for vandalism. I usually tell the user in question, as it seems like a big promotion (with doubling in pay!) but I've been busy just now. SpıkeѦ21:39 28-Jun-13

Phew! Thanks, I thought I was in trouble or something! --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 03:00, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ah! as in, "that article of yours was so bad we are now gonna subject each of your edits to auto-patrolling"? I see the ambiguity. Actually, it's the exact opposite. SpıkeѦ03:28 29-Jun-13

Ah, don't worry about it. Auto patrolled is like, a promotion, you could say... Like it said in the logs, you're probably not a vandal. Don't let us down! --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 03:51, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Shan't (watch now as I go and change every article to say "U r gay"). --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 15:44, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

A sane article from Salon?

If the message you are trying to imply here is that no one agrees with this website so your article is a made-up view-point then it isn't working, I believe a fair amount of what this link has to say, although not all of it (it does go a little over the top). SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 17:08, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

No, what I was saying, since myself and Spike share a distaste for Salon is that for once they've written an article that I regard to be sane, a pro-free market article in other words. I just thought it was funny. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 19:52, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think us liberals hate the concept of a free market, in fact liberal capitalists (right-wing liberals) are the most pro free-market people in the World however this is not an article backing-up them. This is more a lefty article than a liberal article and is saying that there should be more emphasis on industry than economics and that the economy is unpredictable and should not be used as a tool by the rich to minipulate the poor so I am not sure how it is pro free-market.

For my own opinion I would agree that the economy is a tool being used by the oligarchical rich in society to let the poor pay up for the rich's loses and not get reward when the rich do well. That is why I am a huge supporter of industry because industry develops real, material changes in this World and brings together classes in society. A free-market, in the strictest sense of the word, is a dangerous weapon as it allows companies to have more power of the people (through advertising and sales) than a country does. Given a choice between an organisation set up to make money (company) and an organisation set-up to protect and support its members (country), I support countries. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 20:22, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

This article is not pro-free market at all. The author supports limited protectionism, strategic tax policy and generous minimum wages. These are contrary to a fundamentalist-free-market-ideology that is in vogue in the US. In any case, the article focuses more on general ignorance and mis-understanding of economic theory by laymen as well as economists more than spouting left or right views. ScottPat is totally right on this one. --ShabiDOO 00:07, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

It's moot

Lucifuge, I took no position on Salon. If I disliked the blog, I should welcome an article that disparaged it. All I said at Talk:Salon.com is that your comedy strategy for the article (namely: "A libertarian thinks Salon's use of English is dishonest") was neither encyclopedic nor clever nor specific to Salon. In view of this, the questions (1) whether an article of your choosing that ran in Salon aligns with your or our beliefs, and (2) to what extent such an article categorizes Salon as a blog, are both moot. We can stipulate that Salon is left-wing, and this is as precise as we have to be for a springboard to comedy. But what should that springboard be? Not, please, just a rant against lefties.

The advantages of the free market I debate in the Real World, not here. SpıkeѦ00:15 11-Jul-13

Sorry Spike. Lucifage: If you do wish to reply to the free market debate please feel free to use my talk page. Thanks. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 06:36, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Denza versus the Fork

Alright, I almost forgot to tell you,(for like a week or so) but apparently, one user in the fork had the bright idea to make a forum to vote to send DMCA takedown notices to google and whatnot. Now, I have already gotten that forum ruined to the point of it being sent to BHOP, but my point is, there are still some people who want the so called "UncycloWikia" dead or something. What I'm saying is, that might be a thing to look out for in the future. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 20:27, June 30, 2013 (UTC)(They also want to google-bomb their site to the top, which is fine by me, as it is not anything too hostile, just advancing their link)

So what you are saying is that members of the Fork are planning sabotage--but you got them back good? In the same time-frame as you are posturing as a neutral go-between in our Forum? Spend more time doing good work and less time trying to become a bit player in a cosmic political intrigue. SpıkeѦ12:36 4-Jul-13

Spike, I saw that forum and it is very good that it is ruined because it was really dangerous. They wanted to send letters to google, so if you type uncyclopedia, there will be no link to our site but to theirs. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 11:35, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reminding me. I'll bring it up again. Ah, I didn't have you down as a SPIKE-SLAVE Denza, you double agent. IFYMB! (talk)

Denza, I have never been convinced that my differences with Wikia are so irreconcilable as to compel me to move to a private website to do what I have been doing here for four years. Consequently, I do not care where else you edit, nor where else anyone edits, nor whether or not you are in good graces anywhere else. You have been useful to this website for the technical job of distinguishing between good writing and vandalism and reverting the latter, including a lot of it today; less so to the extent it competes with, and is not as rewarding to you as, the political drama of making new friends, double-crossing them, begging for mercy for the consequences of your own behavior, and playing this website against others. SpıkeѦ00:15 11-Jul-13

As long as certain mutual grudges exist between SPIKE and certain forkers, being a "go-between" is like getting involved in a conflict that is none of your business. They may say certain things about his management style and eccentricities, and he may accuse them of potty humor and navelism, but both sides are operating on only part of the truth. Perhaps a certain VFH entry on the fork is a way of trying to get SPIKE to pay attention to them, which he would be wise to ignore. If you want to bring the sites together, first try to get people to stop recruiting users away from this site. If new users really want to find the other site, they can use Google or Wikipedia. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 01:36, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

I object to portraying the conflict as symmetrical. My stated opinion on the Fork is that its dominant take on everything from suitability for the reader to DMCA claims is, "Tell them all to go fuck themselves," and that the Fork is an extreme response to the ordinary phenomenon of disagreement between a company's creative and non-creative departments, a stampede of young authors into a boycott for personal gain. Everything I know about its content and featured articles comes either from Simsie herself or from reading the crap occasionally sporked here in apparent bad faith. I don't claim the above style is universal nor enforced, but it does define it and that is not a half-truth.

More asymmetry: When I disparage the Fork, we are told I am engaging in hate speech, am traumatizing children, am mentally ill, or am singlehandedly driving away participation. When detractors cherry-pick episodes from the past to portray me as a ban-happy ogre, we are told they are in need of another chance, were in a bad mood or tripping that day, or were just kidding. See above. SpıkeѦ13:44 13-Jul-13

Point taken SPIKE. Point taken. Point...taken. --ShabiDOO 15:38, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you if you think that I could nominate this article for deletion. I know that it has already been there and the result was to keep but a lot of time has passed and the article is still bad and everyone forgot about how it was on the VFH and even got six votes. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 10:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

You are free to renominate anything after a lawful one-month period of mourning for the previous nomination, and I will vote Delete for the same reasons as last time. This is everything the Fork has become: Authors using the website and any chance readers to create new memes as monuments to themselves. Reasons not to: It might alienate good writers who still make cameo appearances on this site, and if deleted, I might delegate to you the job of expunging references to it on the website as one of our newest "official" memes. SpıkeѦ12:36 4-Jul-13

That. Comment. Is. Hilarious. SPIKE, have you ever even checked the other side? [Other advertising for external website deleted] I know there are lot of poop-articles but whatever. That's just called 'doing stuff for fun'. They aren't meant to be taken seriously. Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz11:29, 5July, 2013(UTC)

Cat, could you, please, check the new section in the "All the uncycs" forum, even though you said you don't want to keep on discussing the topic? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 11:33, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I stated at User talk:Romartus that this overtly adversarial message was either trolling or was certain to lead to trolling. SpıkeѦ14:02 14-Jul-13

Welcoming anons/users

Hi SPIKE, is it possible if you tell me the code you use to welcome users? I find your welcome template quite a good one, but I don't have the time to create one as I am mainly on Wikipedia. So perhaps when I use your template I will mention that I welcomed on behalf of you? Cheers. Graphium(✉ • ✎) 11:38, 20 June 2013

Sure; and I'm flattered. The code is at User:SPIKE/Welcome. You should customize the photo and caption. Do not welcome Anons, unless they are good; then use {{Account}} and invite them to register. SpıkeѦ13:07 20-Jun-13

I have left a message on Graphium's page. Ah..I like that idea of welcoming an IP who makes edits to improve an article. I will use that template too. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate)® 13:25, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

I learned that from Simsilikesims. However, as I explain in my change summary, a full Welcome message, notably the part about how Anon would ask to be adopted, should wait until he registers; accordingly, I've changed Graphium's full welcome of the repairer of MMORPG. SpıkeѦ13:39 20-Jun-13

@SPIKE: OK, I will customise it when I have time before using it. Graphium(✉ • ✎) 10:13, 21 June 2013 10:13, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

How not to do it

You promised me you would edit my Welcome message to change the personalization to yourself (or you can remove the personalization entirely) before using it to welcome new users. Do not deliver remarks that seem to be from me "on behalf of" me.

Separately, everything you know about good writing needs to be subordinated to evaluating how enforcement will look to a very new user. In particular, you should not engage in a revert war with a newly registered Uncyclopedian (who might not know how to see your rationale in the Change Summary) without explaining your disagreement, probably on his talk page. (In the case of Idontthinksomeonehasthisusername, this is now done.) SpıkeѦ13:27 21-Jun-13

Anton199

Can I, please, welcome new users to Uncyclopedia? If I can, then can I take your welcoming message (I know where to find it) and change it a bit? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 06:48, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, make your own. Just remember to keep it userspace (I learned it the hard way), and that the code works well. Don't make it too long, and include all the necassary n00b articles. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 00:19, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Of course you may welcome new users, and I'd be happy for you to take parts of my message; see also just above. SpıkeѦ04:13 9-Jul-13

Ok. I will work on it. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 12:12, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the guy maintaining VFD, I thought I would ask you whether an {{Oldvfd}} template should be put on the article's talk page, in order to preserve and represent the article's history? Or, to avoid adding the article to Category:Deletion Survivor, substituting the template and then removing the category? Schamschi, 18:25, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the full know here but in your situation I would just copy and paste your article into the redirect page. I have never even heard of Deletion Survivor and I have re-written a few from VFD so I wouldn't bother worrying about that. Leave the old VFD template on the talk page. Of course see what Spike says as he's the veteran. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 18:32, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, however, I don't want to just copy and paste the new version because it isn't really my own work and I think it should be attributed appropriately, which is why I want to preserve the article's history. Schamschi, 18:37, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

A vote of VFD is a vote (with procedural safeguards including quorum and minimum time before deletion) to discard another Uncyclopedian's work. It certainly does not mean that no article can ever again be created on that subject. But unilaterally going against the decision of that August Body is a serious offense.

The rules say that a nominator is supposed to comb through the history and look for a better version. This might not have been done in this case; also, I see that my vote was that the current state of the article was a result of numerous bad edits by numerous IPs. This also argues that it had seen better days and that there was a better outcome than outright deletion. Given your own personal attention to it, you are helping the website to restore an older, better version.

Past that, however, I am lost. Harry Potter (character) now redirects to a disambiguation page. It should live on, under the name Harry Potter (disambiguation), and the referenced pages should feed it ("For other uses of Harry Potter, see...."). Your text could go to Harry Potter (character) or just Harry Potter (if you wish to repair the resulting red-links). I see that RDB deleted this as you say, also that Lee Harvey Osmond undeleted it on 25-Nov-2012. But there is no article history; only the creation of the redirect. I agree that the history should be preserved, but I do not see how to recover it. Maybe the Chief can.

On {{Oldvfd}}: You should copy this discussion to the restored article's talk page. Oldvfd is a strange duck; by definition it never appears with result=Delete. However, it is often used with something other than result=Keep, when necessary to explain other action that the VFD voters agreed to. You should tag it with {{Oldvfd}} simply to point to the VFD vote (although copying the discussion will also do so). SpıkeѦ19:10 14-Jul-13

Actually, User:Schamschi/Harry Potter (character) is the page that Lee Harvey Osmond aka Roman Dog Bird restored, meaning the article and its whole history, it's just that I already overwrote the last version (the version that was VFD-ed) with the version I want to restore. I don't know what exactly RDB did – judging by the logs, he wasn't quite sure how to do it, which is probably why the redirect Harry Potter (character) is no longer protected (it used to be). Maybe I should have asked for permission to overwrite the page because of this, but Lee Harvey Osmond (he was the one who protected the redirect after the VFD) is no longer active and he didn't seem to care about the whole issue back when I asked him, so I just assumed that nobody would care if I overwrote the redirect, not only because the version I intended to restore had basically nothing to do with the article that was VFD-ed, but also because, even though the disambiguation page links to 3 articles, none of these really fills the "Harry Potter (character)" niche. But I understand what you are saying about the VFD policy about checking for older revisions etc.

About the disambiguation page: What I meant was that within the first entry in Harry Potter there is a link to Harry Potter (character). Yes, this is a sign that the disambiguation page is badly organized, and needs to be remedied. I already addressed this issue here in November 2012, but nobody responded (probably because nobody was watching the page), and I didn't care enough to pursue the issue.

So does that mean that you're OK with me moving the page from my userspace to Harry Potter (character) if I repair the disambiguation page and make the articles referenced there link to it? Schamschi, 20:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK with it. I posted a query to ChiefjusticeDS on the history, but apparently youse moved it after restoring it and you are in possession of the history. I do not want to make my approval contingent on the conditions you list, but I do like a job to be done completely, cheers! SpıkeѦ03:35 15-Jul-13

OK, could you please unprotect Harry Potter so I can update it? And do you mean that I should move this disambiguation page to Harry Potter (disambiguation) and make Harry Potter redirect to it? Because there currently doesn't seem to be a Harry Potter article in the broad sense, only specific articles (Harry Potter (character), which is where I intend to move the restored article, Harry Potter (books), Harry Potter (films)). Schamschi, 10:26, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

You are now able to edit or move that disambiguation page. SpıkeѦ11:33 16-Jul-13

OK, thanks. But it turns out I still need your help, because apparently I can't move the page from my userspace to Harry Potter (character), even though the notes say "Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is empty or a redirect and has no past edit history", which is why I assumed that I would be able to move the page. So could you please delete Harry Potter (character)? Schamschi, 11:55, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Done. I listed it on QVFD to make it official, and to show you an alternative way to make this request that would be carried out by whomever was on duty. SpıkeѦ12:02 16-Jul-13

Thanks for your help! I wouldn't have thought about putting it on QVFD, since the deletion of that page only made sense within the context of the move, and I thought that this would be outside the scope of QVFD. But I'll keep that in mind. Schamschi, 12:08, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Good point; another Admin would not only have had to research the issue, but would have gotten around to it only perhaps once-a-day, which would have delayed your project. SpıkeѦ12:11 16-Jul-13

Continuing this, you are changing several links to point to the disambiguation page, commenting at one point that Uncyclopedia could eventually have a Harry Potter article, as Wikipedia does. Why is this a pointer to the disambiguation page, and not exactly the full article you have restored? Although the disambiguation page has a bit of humor, why don't you point those other articles directly to the content? That is, why do we have a Harry Potter (character) (with a redirect at Harry Potter (person) and not a Harry Potter? The rule at Wikipedia is that you never point to a disambiguation page but take the reader through it to the desired content page. SpıkeѦ13:09 16-Jul-13

I assume you mean the redirects I have changed, because if I have changed in-article-links, I've only changed them NOT to point to the disambiguation page. Yeah, you're right, it would indeed make sense for these pages to redirect to Harry Potter instead of a disambiguation page, but in the current situation, that would cause double redirects. But this is really the only reason I redirected these pages to the disambiguation page. Or do you mean that I should point these articles (eg. Draco Malfoy, Dobby) to Harry Potter (character) or one of the other articles from the disambiguation page? I thought that would be too specific, which is why I only redirected Harry Potter (person) to Harry Potter (character). Schamschi, 14:09, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

I mean that many of these distinctions are too fine. Whatever is at Harry Potter should be content. You seem to be saying that we have two pages with actual Harry Potter content, and whatever you decide, as to which of these is the "main" Harry Potter article, is fine with me; simply make it easy for the reader to find the other one too. If someone really wants to create an article on individual books in the series, we can deal with that later. SpıkeѦ14:46 16-Jul-13

OK, I've decided that the article currently at Harry Potter (books) is simply too bad to be moved to Harry Potter and be the "main" Harry Potter article, and unfortunately, its history doesn't look very promising either (not that the article I've restored is great, but I think it's a bit better). Also, I think the books-article is more focused on the books than the restored article is focused on Harry, which would justify making Harry Potter (character) the main Harry Potter article. Now there's only the page currently at Harry Potter standing in the way of the move … Schamschi, 13:53, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well, that should do it … thanks again for your help! Schamschi, 17:31, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I have requested twice now that someone insert the interwiki link cy:AAAAAAAAA! into that article, and you could do this, so would you please?

Also, I hear tell that local admins on Wikia wikis cannot edit a local interwiki table. This appears to be true, as Special:Interwiki gives me an error. Can you comment on this? Thank you. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs• 23:27, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Your interwiki link is now inserted. I cannot edit Special:Interwiki either, but not because I lack privileges, but because it is not one of the closed set of defined pages in the Special namespace. PuppyOnTheRadio knows more than I on how interwiki links are achieved. SpıkeѦ03:35 15-Jul-13

Thank you - but you'll need to remove the leading colon. Only as [[cy:AAAAAAAAA!]] will it display in the sidebar.

From what I can gather, only Wikia staff have access to the interwiki table, and Special:Interwiki doesn't exist for anyone on Wikia wikis. I think that's really all there is to it. I was mostly wondering what your opinion of this setup was. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs• 16:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you still need to remove the colon. I suppose I won't bother you any more... :) -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs• 23:12, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you protected this page several months ago or so but should Anon's edits be reverted? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 10:09, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Your call; and the page is not protected against you but only against Anon. I would have seen the edits that Anon made eight hours before my move. I think I decided his latest edits, while not having a clear comedy direction, were not that bad. SpıkeѦ11:31 16-Jul-13

Oh, ok. I just did not know whether to revert them or not and decided that you knew better, as you protected the page. Then I will just mark them as patrolled. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 11:37, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Spike, I notice that you have not added this to your user page as one of the articles you wrote (I may have missed it) despite the fact that you joint wrote it with me. Is this a mistake or do you not take credit for it? SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 16:11, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

A mere oversight. Ooh, you gave me half credit in the Hall of Shame! SpıkeѦ16:22 16-Jul-13

Well you did collaborate with me, it's only decent of me. Besides your wonderful intro set the tone for my content. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 16:56, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and please remember to leave off the leading colons. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs• 00:47, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Brit-slayer... we need to look into this

Its not vandalism anymore. I'd classify it as an obsession. The guy doesn't want to vandalize uncyclopedia (let me finish), he just hates the british. I mean, the "nya" guy (who kept making pages with the word nya), gave up (hopefully) after the second try. This guy keeps coming back. He, almost religiously, comes and posts his crap here. I'm not sure what to do, save rollback and ban-patrol him. Since he uses the same text, the exact words should be put into the abuse filter. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 05:13, July 18, 2013 (UTC)(Sorry if I seemed rambling in this post...)

Ironically his determination to continue when everyone else has moved on and thinks he is just sad is very British indeed. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 06:38, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

On many days, you will see that his messages vary, and sometimes decrease by half. This binary method is the most efficient way for him to determine exactly what text I am matching on and modify the manifesto. He is expending enormous effort to have no lasting effect on the wiki. SpıkeѦ11:30 18-Jul-13

I made some tests in my sandbox today to see if it was only tripped by certain external links, just out of curiosity. It isn't - which was probably as intended. However, full url links to somewhere on this Uncyclopedia also trip it. For example, if I add http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com anywhere, it gives me the warning and tags the edit. (It warned me for this one too.) But only sometimes, which is pretty strange.

Is this wrong? I don't think it's really very nice to have everyone who provides a fullurl link to something in here be warned about linking to an external site, and it can't possibly have been your intention to do that. Isn't there a way to exempt fullurl links that contain uncyclopedia.wikia.com? -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs• 01:48, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I did not write the MediaWiki Abuse Filter system but am merely a filler-out of forms. It is most elegant for me to use the simplest syntax to test for added links--as the Abuse Filter defines them--rather than bog the website down by rolling my own so as to avoid giving offense. I am not worried that someone who uses a nonstandard alternative to double-bracket links to an Uncyclopedia article might get a warning and get his edit flagged. If I am on Patrol that night, I might post to his talk page and teach him how to do it with double brackets.

Your sandbox file continues to attribute these warnings to Evil Wikia despite my patient explanation in Forum:I'm leaving, and it's your fault, and even though you clearly realize it's my doing, the routine administrative business of detecting, minimizing, and discouraging attempts by Anon to use this website to hump his latest YouTube video. I am baffled that you continue expending energy chafing about receiving a warning. Please write a funny article instead. SpıkeѦ02:51 22-Jul-13

Armorgames.com

May I...write an article about a recent Armorgames.com account hacking thing? There are no specific people, but armorgames was down. It would be a nice change from the more serious UnNews articles and such. Thanks! --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 04:37, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

You don't need permission to write anything (in fact you don't need permission to do nearly anything here) as long as it's not disruptive and it is in the spirit of HTBFANJS. Want to write...then write. Want to propose something new...make a forum. Want to improve something...be bold and try it. You don't have to ask. Just do. --ShabiDOO 04:46, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Nevertheless, an article or UnNews about mischief occurring at some other website would normally lack notability both to the typical writer and to the typical reader of Uncyclopedia. Something tells me that what you have is not a brilliant comedy concept but the recurring desire to show us that we are not your only website. An UnNews primarily designed to inform rather than entertain would be a change from the "serious" business of applying a funny take to a piece of real news that we hope the reader is familiar with, but not a nice one. You indeed don't need permission, but if you were instead asking for advice, my advice is to pick again. As you are familiar with the site, you might create an article on it (like Lucifuge's recent Salon.com) that puts a comedy spin on it. SpıkeѦ13:01 23-Jul-13

Please don't interpret my choice as me saying: "Other sites are interesting, this site sucks." I'm a very lampshady guy... which means I like to point out/ comment on things I see. But I'll write something soon. Love, --The Shield of Azunai DSA510My Edits! 01:36, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Denza, read again carefully. I am not asking you for boosterism; only relevance to the reader. SpıkeѦ02:53 26-Jul-13

Jesus Penis

I'm flattered that you think I'm Mojo Nixon, If that were the case I'd have played toad in the Super Mario Bros movie. But no, I'm not Mojo Nixon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by174.23.142.60 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken to think I viewed your YouTube video. But I did delete your attempt to add it to a page, as this site does not exist so that you can advertise your video. SpıkeѦ13:01 23-Jul-13

Hi Spike. Congratulations on our feature, we finally got Cap'n to rise up in the World for once. Also thanks for voting for Last King of Scotland. Seeing as you rarely vote I must be privelaged or you must be drunk. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byScottPat (talk • contribs)

Thanks! But I am not drunk, and you still can't spell. SpıkeѦ16:20 23-Jul-13

Agreed, but neither is he rip-roaringly funny. At the moment, he is confining his work to his own userspace, where you may certainly mark his edits Patrolled without detailed analysis. SpıkeѦ02:53 26-Jul-13